new_coin_deposit_address

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool generates a new address, missing details on side effects (e.g., whether old addresses become invalid), authorization needs, or error behavior. This is minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks context on mutation effects (e.g., whether generating a new address replaces the old one) and possible error conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds concrete examples for currency (e.g., 'BTC', 'ETH') and network (e.g., 'bitcoin', 'erc20'), clarifies optionality, and explains default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates a new deposit address for a cryptocurrency, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like new_coin_withdrawal (which creates withdrawals) and get_coin_deposit (which reads deposits).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for generating new addresses but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.